[ronald reagan]

I asked the gentleman this question to begin with:

With every topic we have brought up thus far, you always say the same thing, "Alright, so what does the scripture actually say?" He responded, "well, thats the best approach to finding the answer, don't you agree?" to which I said, "maybe, but for the purpose of this conversation, I'll go along with the idea..."

He then asked what my question was.

I asked him, where does the bible come from? The book in your hand, who was it that assembled/picked those books? Obviously the JW's didn't put it together, as you had it available the day that JW was started. So where did it come from?

Any student of christian history will be able to quickly answer this: The catholic church gave us the bible, through multiple councils and church leadership gatherings. I believe the councils of carthage, hippo, and later the council of flores/trent.

He then said, "Why is it important who assembled the collection of books that became the bible? Whats important, is whats written inside of it, right?"

This led me to respond, "So... you reject nearly every single catholic doctrine, correct? But yet, you 100% trust them when they tell you, 'use these books'? Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? Why on earth would you trust them to tell you what books are divine, but not trust them to tell you anything else? It all seems a bit too convenient -- don't ya think? Shouldn't the JW's start a deep investigation into those books, and make sure the catholics got it right?"

He was stunned. Apparently no one had ever brought up this point before. He began to stumble for the first time in our 4-5 hours together. He finally responded, "the church believes that jesus guides the faithful, even when they are wrong. if he wouldn't have allowed the catholics to get it right regarding the correct books, then it would have punished all christians from that point forward."

Right. lol.

Next, I asked him about the idea of the bible being the backbone of 'truth'. If all exisiting truth was contained in the bible? nothing more exists outside of it?

He responds, "that is correct. the bible is the only source of truth. everything that is true regarding christianity is found within these two covers."

So using his preferred method of discerning truth from fiction, "the bible alone" -- known as "Sola Scriptura". I asked him what paul says in his epistles... "Keep my teachings, whether passed to you by writings or word of mouth." Clearly, it was possible and plausible that he and others didn't actually write everything they taught. The JW then pointed me to scripture that "proves" that the bible is the source of truth -- "all scripture is divine and worthy of teaching". However, when Paul wrote this, the New Testament wasn't even in existence. Much of it hadn't even been written. Furthermore, Paul's own writings weren't even meant to be 'books'. They were simple letters written to specific churches foretelling of his coming visit, answering some questions they had, correcting some behaviors, and asking for prayers and various forms of support (financial, food, clothing, shelter.) The New Testament was assembled not because it was the full truth and nothing but the truth, and only truth -- but even the councils that decided upon its content expressed this point. The NT was to be a supplement to faith... not the faith itself.

I then pointed him to what 'his bible' says about truth, and where the responsibility lies in protecting that truth. No where in the bible does it say that the bible is the source of truth... In fact, in Timothy it tells us where truth is. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So the doctrine of 'the bible alone'... is actually not 'in the bible alone'. haha.

He attempted to answer, but stumbled badly and then accused me of rejecting the word of god. I made clear to him, how am I rejecting words that no one ever said? And why am I to ignore the words that were actually said?

The point of the previous few points was to set up a foundation for rejecting the doctrines which he professed. And it appeared to be shaking his own foundation.

So then, for the first time, I questioned doctrines of the JW. Not 'questioned for more information', but questioned the accuracy and validity. I asked him a simple question, "when jesus taught his followers, or potential converts, a lesson or a doctrine -- and they misunderstood him, did he clarify his point? or did he allow them to go off believing a lie, and let it lead them to their spiritual ruin?" He said, "without fail, jesus corrects false assumptions in the new testament." He's correct. And he even pointed out the same verse I was going to point to out: John 3:5. When Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be 'born again'.. Nicodemus understands him to mean that he must go back into his mothers womb and once again be given birth to. But Jesus quickly tells him, "no dude... born of water and spirit.. not a vaginal birth" (granted, he probably said it a bit more eloquently haha). So now the JW and I were in complete agreement that Jesus would want us to know the truth. Which led to my crushing blow: John 6. This is where Jesus commands his followers to 'eat his body' and 'drink his blood'. JW's, like most all non-catholic/orthodox churches, believes that communion of the 'body and blood' is nothing more than a symbolic and metaphorical suggestion. I confirmed his belief in this principle, just to be sure. He confirms it. So again, I asked him his go-to question, "what does the bible actually say?"

In the closing verses of John 6, Jesus tells his disciples to 'eat his body and drink his blood'. And what occurs because of this? Many are in a state of disbelief, and likely disgust. It says that many of his disciples left him that day and walked away, unable to accept this teaching. Now, assuming that Jesus was speaking symbolically and figuratively as JW's profess... What did Jesus do immediately, as soon as his followers walked away and followed him no more? He didn't yell for them to come back, saying, "Nah bruh.. you got it wrong. Its just bread and juice. I was sayin it represents my body and blood...we cool? good. moving on." Thats NOT what occurs. Jesus looks at those who remain with him and says, "Does this shock you?" Then, "are yall gonna leave me too?". And then, he doubles down with a more definitive take. "MY BODY IS MEAT INDEED! MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED."

So if the JW view is right... why on earth would Jesus let a multitude of followers leave and go on to die a spiritual death without him... over a simple misunderstanding?

His response, you ask?

"I think this probably should wrap up our visit for the day. I'm running out of time and this subject may be a bit too advanced for you to understand at this point. May I leave some literature for you to read? And would you like to set up a visit to the local Kingdom so that we may get you started on the path to God?"

My response?

"Like you said Jesus would do for his followers that misunderstood him. He would clear up any misunderstandings they had before he allowed them to journey down a road of false assumptions. So, verily I say unto thee... I will not be attending your kingdom, or starting on a path to Jehovah....

...I'm good bruh."

He then ended the visit with this:

"May I have back the literature that I previously gave you? So that someone who might actually use, can have it instead?"

I'm leaving. I want my ball.